Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness.
arXiv:2607. 15480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly impact society, ensuring their ethical and trustworthy deployment has become a global priority.
By Michael Papademas, Xenia Ziouvelou, Kostas Karpouzis, Vangelis Karkaletsis
arXiv:2605. 23922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification.
By Andrea Ferrario
arXiv:2606. 00621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is now produced.
By Shubhashis Sengupta, Benjamin McCarty, Milind Savagaonkar, Rhine Andotra
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti
arXiv:2607. 09586v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The proliferation of agentic AI systems across enterprise and public-sector contexts has outpaced the capacity of general-purpose AI risk frameworks to classify and govern them.
By Hannah M. Liu, Rhea Saxena, Shiv Asthana